whether the powers were exercised bona fide and whether there had been any mistake as to the identity of the person detained. You conclude this paragraph as follows: "A fortior the must be the concern of a Committee of Review”. I do not see this Committee as an appellate body standing over the Colonial Secretary, and exercising some form of judicial function. On the contrary, I consider that the functions of such a Committee are exclusively administrative and advisory, not supervisory. The primary rules of this Committee as I see them are twofold: in the first place it is the statutory safe- guard and guarantee that the detainee has an unrestricted channel of communication with the authority which makes and unmakes the detention order; and, in the second place, the Committee evaluates as best it may the objections put forward by the detainee and then advises the Colonial Secre- tary on such objection. As part of this function the Com- mittee would no doubt consider the question of whether the person named in the order ("the person aimed at" in the words of Tucker, J) is in fact the person detained, if the matter were raised in the objection.
4. As you know this particular Regulation has been on the statute book since 1949. When the decision was finally taken to bring into force the procedure to be followed, and in particular this very question as to what information should be given to the detainee exercised our minds. It was, there- fore, extdemely helpful to hav ethe clearly expressed views of the Bar Association, and these have helped us to formulate the advice given to Government.
34
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.